Furnace cooling time

[Johncast]

Hi fellow jewellers and casting people

Would like some info as to the cooling rate of the furnace when lost wax casting . Once the flasks have completed the burnout temp for the 2 or more hours we then can drop the furnace temp to the casting temperature we need .
In my cast most flasks P6 P8 size are to cast brass and some of the castings are very large and only a few items in the flask. Some of the items are very prone to heat perosity if poured at to high a flask temperature. My flask casting temp is as low as 300 oC and it takes some time for the furnace to reduce the flask to this temp.
How Quickly can the flasks be reduced down in temp? Or will they crack, At present I take several hours and at times open the furnace door open for a few seconds to try a little to knock the temp down just that little quicker.
This is all working Ok and has done over the years but makes for a very long casting day, like last week when the final flask hit the bucket of water at 10pm , would it be OK to reduce the furnace quicker by leaving the furnace door a little bit open

Thanks Johncast

[JazlynMorales]

Sure @johncast, The Lost wax casting requires careful consideration of several factors that affect the cooling rate of the furnace, including flask size, metal type, and desired temperature. To prevent damage to the castings, it's important to cool the flask down slowly, but not too slowly. A recommended cooling rate is 50-100°C per hour, depending on flask size and metal type. Opening the furnace door during cooling may speed up the process but can cause uneven cooling and flask cracking. A programmable furnace can speed up cooling, or casting smaller batches or using a less heat-porous metal can reduce cooling time.

[ps_bond]

Oh goody, ChatGPT generated spam.

[CJ57]

Oh goody, ChatGPT generated spam.

Is this a first Peter?

[ps_bond]

Obviously, I could be wrong. But given how much I've been tinkering with AI recently, it reads an awful lot like it.
Still, if it is spam it's a better attempt than most - and the first time I've seen it; I'll ask around.

[CJ57]

I thought it was spam as 3 in a row. This one is much better than a previous one on Nick’s post though which was fairly unintelligible.
I still have to ask why bother at all